On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 22:11, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> 1. spring-deployment is a (cool) spring based avalon container >> 2. pheonix-deployment is an avalon container >> 3. both depend on components coupled to intrusive avalon interfaces
Maybe it's ok to rephrase that a little bit, to highlight an important difference to phoenix: The spring-deployment _supports_ Avalon-based components, and thus it depends on Avalon interfaces. You can (at least that was my intention) deploy any other non-Avalon-based bean besides our Avalon-based components. >> 4. the intrusive nature of avalon is bad for the code base >> >> this means that it's not going to be possible to factor out non-avalon >> components within the current layer structure. either >> spring-deployment needs to depend on pheonix-deployment or a new layer >> is going to be needed the functions and the avalon-containers. >> >> - robert > > This is a perfect summary of my previous concerns :-) > To be more precise spring-deployment is a spring based avalon container > compatible with phoenix configuration (config.xml) and descriptors (xinfo) > so, there is something more than avalon in the coupling. > > I guess the ideas was to have spring as an avalon container so we could move > some component out of avalon step by step. this, and deploy new James components which are not tied to Avalon, and get MBeans running again under modern JDKs, and make it easier to integrate with anything already running in Spring, and to integrate James into Spring-supporting containers, like Geronimo, Tomcat, Felix. Bernd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
